What part do genetics play in mental illness?

Discussion in 'Other Off-Topic Chat' started by Jack Napier, Jun 10, 2012.

  1. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We know, because it can be fully evidenced and demonstrated that many illnesses and diseases are not merely genetic, they can be almost exclusive to one group of people.

    While these conditions can occur in other people, it is often 100 times or more less likely, than if you are perhaps belonging to the given group.

    Sickle-cell disease, for example is often the reserve of those of Sub-Saharan Africa.

    It is of course not anything more than a statement of fact, to say this.

    Ashkenazi Jews, that is to say, those that were/are of East European stock, they have a number of genetic flaws, which predispose them to getting a given illness, FAR more than ANY other groups of people. Even other Jews, non Ashkenazi's, are 100times less likely to get a given disease than an Ashkenazi Jew. This is mainstream and hard science.

    Examples of Ashkenazi diseases.

    Tay-Sachs Disease, Canavan, Niemann-Pick, Gaucher, Familial Dysautonomia, Bloom Syndrome, Fanconi anemia, Cystic Fibrosis and Mucolipidosis IV.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Health/genetics.html

    So, there we have it, evidence that it does play a part in that side of things. One of the primary reasons for these genetic flaws is, well, a small gene pool... :)

    You can see what happens with canines, when you keep the gene pool too narrow.

    We may call them 'pedigree' dogs, but often many many of them suffer greatly from terrible conditions, due to too narrow a gene pool.

    If it can be shown that the above is all true, which it can, then what of disease/illness...of the mind?

    Is it possible that a narrow gene pool could lend itself to a much greater chance of manifestation of a mental illness, at least on some level, so that much like those with the above physical conditons being up to 100 times more prone than others, is it possible this can be mirrored with mental health?

    For instance, let's take schizophrenia.

    Certainly, it appears it can be genetic, and plays a large part.

    Although environmental also plays a part. That is another way of saying a culture, or cultural reasons/social reasons.

    It it can be genetic, and we already know small gene pool can lead to a greater chance of genetic flaws, is it possible that a group of people who did not have a very large gene pool could be far more prone?

    Jack
     
  2. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the numbers of Americans relying on, or taking meds for mood stability or depression has increased, since the 80's alone, FOURFOLD, what may have began to happen, circa 1980 and aggressively since, that you think could be contributing factors?

    'According to new survey data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in 10 Americans older than 12 are now taking antidepressants -- a fourfold increase in the prevalence of antidepressant use since the late 1980s'

    23 percent of all women ages 40 to 59 reported taking antidepressants.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/10-americans-antidepressants-therapist/story?id=14763251
     
  3. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think it is genetics. I just think the genetics sets the stage. In many families where you see gifted intelligence you also see a lot of schizophrenia. In my observations it isn't a genetic tendency towards schizophrenia as much as it is an inability to focus a gifted mind. A brilliant person who doesn't develop the skills to control their mind will often develop schizophrenia.
     
  4. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Citation to support that, from science?
     
  5. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sure you are aware that all hallmark of schizophrenia is declining IQ. Many stratospheric test as gifted children but decline from there.
     
  6. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The more I look at it maybe it is a little bit of both.

    According to this site there has been a common gene identified in both the gifted and the psychotic.

    http://highability.org/92/a-link-between-intellectual-functioning-and-schizophrenia/

    "A National Institute of Mental Health study last year found “Most people inherit a version of a gene that optimizes their brain’s thinking circuitry, yet also appears to increase risk for schizophrenia."

    So we can conclude that it is both nature and nurture. If you are lucky enough to be able to control and focus this gift you may wind up as brilliant. If you cant it will destroy you. After all what do psychotic medications do but force the mind to focus. All the drugs do is force the brain to do what others have learned to do.
     
  7. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mental illness is not a 'gift', imo.

    I have met people with all sorts of mental illness.

    The worse is Borderline Personality Disorder.

    It's the worse for.....those that are around one, and don't realise what is going on, right away.

    Any-hoo...if you agree that genetics can play a large part in it, and if you agree that certain groups within humanity are far more prone to physical illnesses than other groups, like 100 times more, do you think it possible that a mental health issue can also be more prevelant among a given group, over others?

    And, if that is so, what if this group keep on breeding and marrying with one another, over time, do you not end up with a substantial number who absorb at least a good % or some % of the traits. And what if it is so prevelant among a given group, that they themselves almost do not recognise it, either in themselves, or among their group?

    Jack
     
  8. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We might sum it up thus: A powerful mind is a potentially unstable one.
     
  9. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are a number of problems with this question. I'm hoping we'll be able to get it down to something testable, so we can get you an answer.

    Firstly, "mental illness" is a broad range of disorders with various etiology and diagnostic criteria. For example, something like schizophrenia caused by misfiring neurons related to dopamine production. It's able to be identified by MRI and PET scans, fairly reliably. Schizophrenia is a mental disorder that is based on neurological dysfunction. In short, it is objectively identifiable, and well defined (though considered one of the more unknown of those that cause significant neurological deficit).

    On the other hand you have something like Borderline Personality Disorder. There are considered to be many different causes (largely environmental), involved in BPD. To identify it, you must go to an interview with a mental health professional, who will then make a subjective determination on whether you meet the criteria for BPD. It is unknown how it relates to cognitive function. In short, it is not objectively identifiable, nor well defined.

    Even within the subset of neurological disorders that cause decreased functionality, the role of genetics varies from disease to disease.

    Schizophrenia, to continue our example, has a well identified genetic component. Again, however, the degree to which it is involved, is unknown. Many who manifest schizophrenia have a specific variation of the NOTCH4 gene. However, not all, nor even most. There is also a well known environmental component. Malnutrition and stress increase your odds of developing schizophrenia, and recent evidence has also indicated a link to increased marijuana usage.

    The relationship between the two aspects (and thus, the complete etiology) of schizophrenia, is not completely understood.

    Compare that, though, to something like Huntington's Chorea. As it progresses, the sufferer completely loses motor control, emotional control, until devolving completely into dementia. This is caused exclusively by mutations in the IT15 gene. This can be either inherited, or based upon mutation during conception. The etiology of Huntington's is almost completely understood, and is exclusively genetic.

    Thus, before you can have a proper answer to your question, you would need to identify which mental illnesses you would like to know about. If it is an an objectively identifiable, well defined disorder, we can look into the role of genetics in the mental illness. Otherwise, it's not really possible to get a sufficient answer to the question you posed.
     
  10. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you for that post, FC, it is indeed refreshing to take on something well written, and well thought out.

    I appreciate you doing that, and your question, as above.

    I almost get a feeling you may work in the field of genetics, or have some qualification in it and/or psychiatry?

    Dr. Arnold A. Hutschnecker was a psychiatrist. (Treated at least one US President)

    An American, one would take it that he had all the correct years of study, and, therefore, while his proposition may not be conclusive, it cannot be entirely dismissed, in the context of the discussion.

    Here is what he wrote...

    Evidence that Jews are carriers of schizophrenia is disclosed in a paper prepared for the American Journal of Psychiatry by Dr. Arnold A. Hutschnecker, the New York psychiatrist who once treated President Nixon.

    In a study entitled "Mental Illness: The Jewish Disease" Dr. Hutschnecker said that although all Jews are not mentally ill, mental illness is highly contagious and Jews are the principal sources of infection.

    Dr. Hutschnecker stated that every Jew is born with the seeds of schizophrenia and it is this fact that accounts for the world-wide persecution of Jews.

    "The world would be more compassionate toward the Jews if it was generally realized that Jews are not responsible for their condition." Dr. Hutschnecker said. "Schizophrenia is the fact that creates in Jews a compulsive desire for persecution."

    Dr. Hutschnecker pointed out that mental illness peculiar to Jews is manifested by their inability to differentiate between right and wrong. He said that, although Jewish canonical law recognizes the virtues of patience, humility and integrity, Jews are aggressive, vindictive and dishonest.

    "While Jews attack non-Jewish Americans for racism, Israel is the most racist country in the world," Dr. Hutschnecker said.

    Jews, according to Dr. Hutschnecker, display their mental illness through their paranoia. He explained that the paranoiac not only imagines that he is being persecuted but deliberately creates situations which will make persecution a reality.

    Dr. Hutschnecker said that all a person need do to see Jewish paranoia in action is to ride on the New York subway. Nine times out of ten, he said, the one who pushes you out of the way will be a Jew.

    "The Jew hopes you will retaliate in kind and when you do he can tell himself you are anti-Semitic."

    During World War II, Dr. Hutschnecker said, Jewish leaders in England and the United States knew about the terrible massacre of the Jews by the Nazis. But, he stated, when State Department officials wanted to speak out against the massacre, they were silenced by organized Jewry. Organized Jewry, he said, wanted the massacre to continue in order to arouse the world's sympathy.

    Dr. Hutschnecker likened the Jewish need to be persecuted to the kind of insanity where the afflicted person mutilates himself. He said that those who mutilate themselves do so because they want sympathy for themselves. But, he added, such persons reveal their insanity by disfiguring themselves in such a way as to arouse revulsion rather than sympathy.

    Dr. Hutschnecker noted that the incidence of mental illness has increased in the United States in direct proportion to the increase in the Jewish population.

    "The great Jewish migration to the United States began at the end of the nineteenth century," Dr. Hutschnecker said. "In 1900 there were 1,058,135 Jews in the United States; in 1970 there were 5,868,555; an increase of 454.8%. In 1900 there were 62,112 persons confined in public mental hospitals in the United States; in 1970 there were 339,027, in increase of 445.7%. In the same period the U.S. population rose from 76,212,368 to 203,211,926, an increase of 166.6%. Prior to the influx of Jews from Europe the United States was a mentally healthy nation. But this is no longer true."

    Dr. Hutschnecker substantiated his claim that the United States was no longer a mentally healthy nation by quoting Dr. David Rosenthal, chief of the laboratory of psychology at the National Institute of Mental Health, who recently estimated that more than 60,000,000 people in the United States suffer from some form of "schizophrenic spectrum disorder." Noting that Dr. Rosenthal is Jewish, Dr. Hutschnecker said that Jews seem to take a perverse pride in the spread of mental illness.

    Dr. Hutschnecker said that the word "schizophrenia" was given to mental disease by dr. Eugen Blueler, a Swiss psychiatrist, in 1911. Prior to that time it had been known as "dementia praecox," the name used by its discoverer, Dr. Emil Kraepelin. Later, according to Dr. Hutschnecker, the same disease was given the name "neurosis" by Dr. Sigmund Freud.

    "The symptoms of schizophrenia were recognized almost simultaneously by Bleuler, Kraepelin and Freud at a time when Jews were moving into the affluent middle class," Dr. Hutschnecker said. "Previously they had been ignored as a social and racial entity by the physicians of that era. They became clinically important when they began to intermingle with non-Jews."

    Dr. Hutschnecker said that research by Dr. Jacques S. Gottlieb of Wayne State University indicates that schizophrenia is caused by deformity in the alpha-two-globulin protein, which in schizophrenics is corkscrew-shaped. The deformed protein is apparently caused by a virus which, Dr. Hutschnecker believes, Jews transmit to non-Jews with whom they come in contact. He said that because those descended from Western European peoples have not built up an immunity to the virus they are particularly vulnerable to the disease.

    "There is no doubt in my mind," Dr. Hutschnecker said, "that Jews have infected the American people with schizophrenia. Jews are carriers of the disease and it will reach epidemic proportions unless science develops a vaccine to counteract it."

    http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/schizo.htm
     
  11. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A scientist with a great deal of curiosity, and insomnia. Leads me to study things well outside my formal education.

    The value of education is as valuable as the knowledge it imparts, and no more. Contributions are determined based on their merit. Not on the name associated with it. Now, with that in mind, let's take a look at this.

    When I first looked at this, I was quite confused, as there is little to no evidence that schizophrenia is caused by a contagion. However, when I looked up the article, I found it was posted in the mid 70s, which was when the etiology of schizophrenia was poorly understood. In the last decade or so, there have been a few studies that showed certain infections in utero can lead to increased incidence of schizophrenia (toxoplasmosa gondii, influenza, STIs, some autoimmune disorders).

    Attempts to replicate these findings in adults have so far failed. Monitoring those who have bacterial infections of their CNS has not shown any correlation with increased incidence of schizophrenia.

    The only studies that have shown a correlation, in a group not in utero, with infection, is among children with mumps. Causation is unknown, and thus it is entirely possible that it is more of an incidental correlation, based on the relatively low sample sizes, and lack of significant study (due to its near eradication in Western society).

    Toxoplasmosis (caused by toxoplamsa gondii), as I mentioned earlier, is an interesting matter, as there has been a correlation shown in adult patients, with high toxo serum levels, in schizophrenics. The results haven't been consistent, so it is difficult to draw any sort of meaningful conclusions from these studies.

    Further, it is difficult to find a plausible method of toxoplasmosis causing dopaminurgic neuronal misfiring, in adults with a developed brain. In utero, an infection that spreads to the CNS can disrupt proper neural development, putting the subject at higher risk in the future. In adults, that's highly implausible.

    It is theoretically possible that Jews are more likely to be infected with toxoplasma gondii in utero. This seems highly unlikely, though, since latent toxoplasmosis (which is what would be the presentation we're discussing here), becomes very easily recognizable at later stages in the nervous system. Since there has been no significant epidemiological evidence to indicate that Jews are at a higher risk of infection than the average person, it is unlikely to manifest in Jews to the degree being described.

    Even if that were true, though, it wouldn't account for the interaction that Dr. Hutschnecker is describing. Even if Jews were significantly more susceptible to toxoplasmosis than the average individual, it wouldn't make them a "principle source of infection". That isn't how schizophrenia spreads.

    I am a bit concerned by his lack of precision, as well. For example, toxoplasmosis is a disease (in the same manner that schizophrenia is a disease), that is caused by an infection of toxoplasma gondii. It wouldn't make sense to say that you were infected by toxoplasmosis. In a similar fashion, even if schizophrenia were caused by an infection, it wouldn't make sense to say that somebody is infected with schizophrenia. You would have to say that they were infected by schizophrenia non existentibus. :p

    In addition, what he is describing is not schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is when somebody suffers from a break with reality. A cry for attention is generally considered to be (if you call it a disorder) Borderline Personality Disorder or Histrionic Personality Disorder. I'm not entirely sure when BPD was last considered a subset of schizophrenia, but one who has been diagnosed with BPD does not present with the same fMRI and PET scans, that somebody with schizophrenia would present with.

    It's possible that it was re-classified after he wrote this (my memory tells me it was re-classified sometime in the 60s or 70s). That would account for the inconsistencies in what he's saying.

    What he is describing there is psychopathy. That is neither schizophrenia, nor borderline personality disorder.

    Paranoia can present as a specific subtype of schizophrenia. However, it is not paranoia as he is describing it. While a paranoid schizophrenic may have an unwarranted perception that he is being persecuted, the other major diagnostic criteria is auditory hallucinations. The symptom most associated with paranoid schizophrenics (outside of their paranoia and auditory hallucinations), are anxiety and suicidal thoughts.

    More importantly, a paranoid schizophrenic does not have a vague paranoia, in the way Dr. Hutschnecker is describing. It is generally a very specific paranoia. They might believe that everybody is a government agent trying to poison his eggs, so he'll refuse to eat eggs to thwart them. He might believe that a conglomeration believes him to have top secret information, and is thus suspicious of everybody in a suit. Paranoia in paranoid schizophrenics almost never presents as a general, "People are out to get me."
     
    Jack Napier and (deleted member) like this.
  12. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In addition, a schizophrenic will not find a way to make their paranoia justified. I admit to a complete ignorance on the origin of that belief.

    What he's talking about there isn't a psychological issue. That's sociological. Psychology deals with how a person relates to others. Sociology studies the interactions of groups. Moreover, paranoid schizophrenics, which is the subtype he is discussing, are almost universally loners. Their lack of ability to interact in a normal manner, socially, results in developing a general distrust of people, and organization.

    People who are mentally ill mutilate themselves for a variety of reasons. The goal is rarely to arouse revulsion or sympathy. A schizophrenic, for example, who mutilates themselves, might be trying to dig out the alien tracking device hidden in their rib cage. Somebody with Munchhausen's does so to elicit attention from doctors. People who are mentally ill are defined as such by an inability to deal with things mentally, in the same way as others do. That does not mean that they aren't acting rationally from their subjective perspective.

    As an example, you see a person walking down the street who then starts waving their arms wildly, falls to the ground, and curls up in a ball, waving their arms. In this scenario, that is a perfectly rational reaction to the perception by the individual of being attacked by seagulls. In a mentally competent person, this would not happen unless they actually were being attacked by seagulls. In a mentally incompetent individual, it is entirely possible that they perceive it, even though it isn't happening.

    It doesn't mean they do so for no reason. It means they do so for no reason based in reality.

    It is worth pointing out, however, that the worldwide diagnosis in mental health started increasing in the 19th century, when those with mental disorders were no longer caged, or abused for their diagnosis. As society became more accepting of the existence and need to treat mental disorders as we would any other disease (the turn of the century), the number who were willing to acknowledge the existence went up.

    Further, criteria was not well developed until the turn of the century. Thus, the diagnosis (or lack thereof) prior to such a time, was rather meaningless. Psychiatry, as a field of study, didn't even exist until the 20th century. It would make sense, then, that the number of individuals diagnosed, starting in the 1900s, would increase dramatically. As a rather relevant analogy, it would be an egregious abuse of logic to claim that genetic disorders didn't exist until the 20th century, because they were not diagnosed. To claim that the average population did not suffer from genetic disorders, because they went undiagnosed and untreated, is using the same methodology used at arriving at the conclusion stated by Dr. Hutcschnecker above.

    As a scientist, I am appalled at the logic being passed off by Dr. Hutschnecker.

    As I mentioned above, the field of psychiatry did not truly begin until into the 1900s. What is being noticed in here, more than the influx of Jews (which never amounted to a significant portion of the population), is the development of the field of psychiatry. Proper diagnostic criteria, and wider education on mental illness leads to a higher number diagnosed.

    To draw an analogy, the current model of vaccinations wasn't really developed until Pasteur in the 19th century, and became more widespread in the middle of the 20th century. As we discussed above, the field of psychiatry began to be more widely available in the 20th century. Thus, by the time autism had criteria drawn up, and awareness of the disorder increased, more were checked for it. Because more were checked, the number with autism began to skyrocket. This led to vaccines being blamed for autism. The lack of connection, despite being the single most thoroughly researched aspects of autism, has remained at the forefront of research by foundations.

    It is a similar case, wherein a correlation was noted, but were related to co-morbidity, and not to causation.

    There is no Alpha 2 globulin protein. That is a group of about a dozen proteins that cover a wide variety of things. None, from what I've been able to find, are related to schizophrenia. There are a few other proteins that are related to an increased incidence of schizophrenia. It's very possible he was talking about the alpha 2 macroglobulin, which is related to alzheimer's. While it is possible to mistake behaviours for one or the other, they are very different, neurologically. Alzheimer's is caused by buildups of amyloid-beta peptides. Schizophrenia, as we discussed, is caused by misfiring dopaminurgic neurons.

    I was unable to find what virus Dr. Hutschnecker believes to be the cause of schizophrenia, for which Jews are carriers, which makes it hard for me to determine if there is epidemiological evidence to support the hypothesis he's put forth. However, being completely certain of your conclusion, in scientific terms, without having had it tested by others, is a mark that there is perhaps some other issue at hand. It reeks of a lack of objectivity.

    Overall, Dr. Hutschnecker, despite his degree, has demonstrated a poor understanding of schizophrenia, and neurophysiology. What has been presented here, is, in no way, a rational, science-based argument.

    This isn't particularly surprising. As the Sowell papers (if I'm remembering the name for it properly) demonstrated, even well educated scientists have trouble differentiating between scientific nonsense, and legitimate information. So long as people cite people who existed, and name things that exist, most people can't tell if they are making sense or not.

    I hope I was able to help.
     
  13. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sokel, not Sowell
     
  14. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Thank you, again, what a quality post.

    It must be fascinating to be a scientist who is also curious.

    I really appreciate your comments here, and respect them.

    Jack
     
  15. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    FC.

    Hello again.

    Fascinating reading, it is great to have the work or writings of one, reviewed properly by another.

    I am also going to re-read your responses, a little later, as I need to properly take them in.

    However, in keeping with the discussion, it is my assertion that the Jews were reinvented, not as a religous people, but as a 'race', only around a century ago. If you are familiar with the works of the founder of Zionism, you will know that he and his ilk were atheists, their only care was a nationalist state, they even trawled around, consider Uganda and Seychelles, before the finally settled on where they did. They twisted and capitalised on an OT line, even though the Torah forbids Jews to create Israel, until such a time that their 'messiah' has come. But they were atheists, who took advantage of that niche.

    I absolutely reject the concept of the Jews, as a race and or a mono 'ethic group' (which is what Zionists prefer to say, they shy away from admitting they really mean 'race').

    Indeed, the idea of Jews as this, is an utter falsity, as far as I am concerned.

    Would one think there much similar between, for example, Scarlett Johanson and Sammy Davis Jnr?

    I realise we are all part of the human species, but it is just mad to have reinvented the Jews as a racial group, indeed, were they so, apart from the example I just gave, as a race, they would surely suffer from disease, at more or less a consistant rate as one another.

    Yet they don't. See the Ashkenazi Jewish diseases, which are many, listed in OP.

    If they were a race, they would have clearly defined racial charachteristics, would they not?

    And if that is so, then what are they? Hitler also considered Jews to be a race. So did his scientists. Strange that both Hitler and World Zionism BOTH wanted to 'create the jewish people'..

    The Reich were known to caricature Jews, as having certain physical traits. I say Hitler, but again, it more likely came from Reich science.

    Like it or not, these included a nose like a upside down 6, a fleshy lower lip with hangover, etc.

    But people would reject that today, no? I mean, some Jews may v well fit that type. Others clearly do not. Moreover, there are many non Jews with those physical features, imo.

    However, because of rampant Jewish nationalism, it appears that authors and Jewish scientists are determined to cement this (deception), into mainstream fact.

    See...

    DNA links prove Jews are a ‘race,' says genetics expert


    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/dna-links-prove-jews-are-a-race-says-genetics-expert-1.428664

    In his new book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, claims that Jews are different, and the differences are not just skin deep. Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature. Considering that the Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness, such a conclusion might be a cause for concern. But Ostrer sees it as central to Jewish identity.

    “Who is a Jew?” has been a poignant question for Jews throughout our history. It evokes a complex tapestry of Jewish identity made up of different strains of religious beliefs, cultural practices and blood ties to ancient Palestine and modern Israel. But the question, with its echoes of genetic determinism, also has a dark side.

    Geneticists have long been aware that certain diseases, from breast cancer to Tay-Sachs, disproportionately affect Jews. Ostrer, who is also director of genetic and genomic testing at Montefiore Medical Center, goes further, maintaining that Jews are a homogeneous group with all the scientific trappings of what we used to call a “race.”

    It would be too long to put it all here..

    Furthermore, I was somewhat at a loss around six months ago, about what another Jewish scientist said.

    In fact, he said two things, at two different times.

    (I will try to remember his name, at the moment it escapes me).

    Firstly, he wrote a paper that stated that there was no such thing as race, and that race was merely a societal thing.

    A short time later, he was to declare that he had 'proof' that the Jews were a race.

    How can it be both at one time?

    How can't an African person be an African person, and a Nordic person a Nordic person, but a Jew CAN be a race...even though they aren't.

    Jack
     
  16. catalinacat

    catalinacat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    6,922
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    What Factchecker said. ^^:judge:
     
  17. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was a top quality and well written response.
     
  18. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is a problem that I run across fairly regularly, and the answer is fairly complicated (more precisely, it's technical). I'm going to do my best to address it properly here, but I doubt it will come across clearly in one response. "Race" is a very, very imprecise word. Like the examples of 'insanity' and 'infected', the term has been equivocated across both scientific and non-scientific terminology.

    I'll go through each point, and attempt to clarify as best I can.

    Before I begin, though, I'm going to explain (briefly), the two most common uses I have seen, and why they are not as interchangeable as people believe them to be.

    Firstly, from a sociological standpoint, a race is generally considered to have historically consistent appearance, group of beliefs, culture, and skin tone. Due to the increased gloablization in the 20th and 21st century, this has become less and less distinct, from group to group. A perfect example is the Spanish. Based on our sociological criteria, they are European. They look European, share similar beliefs, history, culture, and skin color.

    Yet, after they emigrated to South America, the descendents of the Spaniards became different in culture and beliefs. Moreover, their intermarriage with the indigenous population changed their appearance and skin color. Sociologically speaking, they became a different race: hispanic.

    From an anthropological standpoint, a race is generally considered to be a genetically consistent group, distinguished by their haplogroup. A haplogroup is made of related haplotypes, which are specific combinations of alleles in loci. Using this, you can trace ancestry. Alleles specific to the Y-chromosome are, necessarily, passed father to son. Thus, if you and I share a Y-DNA haplotype (assuming we're male, of course), then it means that at some point, we shared the same male ancestor. Likewise, since mitochondrial DNA is passed only by the mother (but to any offspring), if we share an mtDNA haplotype, then we can conclude that we shared the same female ancestor.

    If this is confusing (and I can completely understand how it would be), there are others on the forum who explain the anthropological aspect far better than I. I have great difficulty explaining genetics without speaking technically. That can make it hard for a lay person to understand me. If that's the case, check out the explanation somebody else posted in another thread. I have a feeling that will be more helpful than mine.

    Basically, sociological definitions of race are dependent upon historical records and archaeological findings. Anthropological definitions of race are dependent upon genetic findings.

    So, let's go back to our Spanish/Hispanic example. Sociologically, they would be considered distinct races. However, anthropologically speaking, they would still be considered the same race, since they would share a haplogroup. This lack of precision in terminology, is what causes a lot of the disconnect that people experience while discussing race.

    Now, with that in mind, let's look at the information.

    Here is the first confusion of the two. Ashkenazi Jews are defined as such by common ancestry. Thus, they would fall under the anthropological definition of race. They would share genetic susceptibilities, and haplotypes, but not necessarily share appearance.

    Thus, in the proposed scenario of Jews (as a racial group) being re-invented about a century ago, it would be important to differentiate under which criteria they are being considered a "race". Obviously they would not be a race, anthropologically speaking, since a disparate group of individuals (definitionally), wouldn't be more likely than any other, to be in the same haplogroup.

    Sociologically speaking, if they demonstrate the same historical culture, beliefs, appearance, and skin tone, such a group could legitimately be considered a distinct race. This, as one would expect, would be nearly impossible to determine objectively, and would be subject to rapid change in definition.


    By Reich science, I assume you are talking about experiments in Germany, at the time. Please correct me, as I am not completely sure. My response will be based on the initial assumption.

    Now, many people who discuss the scientific "studies" conducted in Germany while the Nazi party was in power, focus on their propensity to conduct experiments on human subjects without determining safety, and performing medical procedures without a full understanding of the results that would come from them. I do not believe that this was the biggest criticism that can be levied against science in that period.

    While it is true that some things that they did, legitimately followed scientific protocols, the majority that they did, did not. Many were based on pseudoscientific principles, with methodology that was far from rigorous (a generous way of putting it). Intentionally cutting a wound in a prisoner's leg, and infecting them with a specific bacteria, while unethical, was generally done in a relatively scientific manner. The results of this experimentation had legitimate implications, and could be trusted.

    However, the vast majority of the "experiments" did not follow the scientific method in any fashion. A notable example was their "research" into racial hygiene. There had never been any legitimate studies that found anything of the sort. However, because the scientists began with a conclusion in mind, they strayed quite far from the method that allowed for reliable, reproduceable, and thus trustworthy, results. Evolution and Archaeology were, frequently, abused scientifically, by scientists under the Nazis. The damage to both evolutionary theory and genetics, caused by the pseudoscientific principles of the period, is still being undone.

    That said, if you happen to have one of the studies, I'd be happy to check it for methodology and consistency, to examine the impact of it. The problem is that there have not been, to my knowledge, any studies indicating that Jews have a greater tendency towards the facial features you are describing.

    Excellently stated. It's about tendency towards a characteristic.
     
  19. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, and this is exactly where it gets hairy. When a Geneticist says that Jews exhibit a distinctive genetic signature (probably not the exact phrasing of the doctor in question), he's basically saying that Jews share certain haplotypes. He is talking in the anthropological sense, and not the sociological sense.

    Poor sciencer reporting is the basis for issues like this, where they prefer the ubiquitous, and terribly imprecise term "race", when that isn't a precise enough term for what is being said. This, of course, comes as a result of them generally not understanding the topic themselves. Since they can't come out and say that, they tend to confuse the matter by substituting in words they believe to be similar. This spreads false information to the general populace, and leads to unending misunderstandings.

    I can tell you right now, that this is one of the biggest headaches for most legitimate researchers.

    And because of that headache that it causes them, they try to put in another word that they believe people will understand. Basically, they pre-empt the misunderstanding, and say something that is closer to what they mean, than they expect science reporters to use. They lower the precision in what they say, to increase the accuracy of what the populace hears.

    We can tell this was the case here, because genetic researcher wouldn't address, nor be capable of addressing, race from a sociological definition. Their findings would only address race genetically, which is based on haplotype: the anthropological definition.

    Without seeing the exact quote, I would be unable to give a better basis for the answer than I have thus far. It would be entirely possible for Jews to share haplotypes, but not share a historically consistent culture, appearance, skin tone, and beliefs. Likewise, it would be entirely possible for Jews to share a historically consistent culture, appearance, skin tone, and beliefs, but not share haplotypes.

    Both scenarios would account for saying that they both are, and are not a race.
     
  20. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    @FC.

    You said;

    Sociologically speaking, if they demonstrate the same historical culture, beliefs, appearance, and skin tone, such a group could legitimately be considered a distinct race. This, as one would expect, would be nearly impossible to determine objectively, and would be subject to rapid change in definition.

    That's my point though. They don't tick the box there either. As we have established, there are no definitive features that are 100% Jewish, or even 80%. We have the SDJ and Scarlett J.

    The Zionists have always been about this fakery of passing Jews off as a single group, a national group, and a race(sic).

    It's just not true though.

    In the early part of the 20th century, most European Jews were not Zionists, albeit the WZM had gained power, in its short years.

    There was indeed a huge rift between the non Zionist Jews and rabbi's, whose number were larger, and those that desired to create the Jews as a 'people'.

    Although the Zionists circa the 1920's were smaller in number, they held the financial and organisational advantage.

    Zionists always shared the same ideals as Hitler of Jews being a distinct race(sic), it is perhaps not surprising that World Zionism took on some infuences of the NA, or vice versa.

    Eventually, as with all things happen, if you are partizan enough about it, and you throw enough money at it, a lot of previously non Zionist Rabbi's came around to this new way of being a Jew. Esp after WW2.

    Now, instead of a Jew being one who practices Judaism, and observes it's laws, this had the handy effect of allowing one to claim ownership of being a religion, when that suited, or being a race/ethnic group, when that suited, and being a national people, when that suited.

    The Zionist movement were atheists, it makes a total mockey out of Israel being the 'home for the Jews', on any religous pretext nothing more than a cruel lie.

    Realising that they cannot pass Jews off as sharing distinct racial features, without, oddly enough, sounding 'anti semite' themselves, they play up the 'shared culture and heritage' card.

    Again, this is 100% a falsity.

    What possible shared culture and heritage did an atheist Polish Jew, who had never left Poland before, could not point to Palestine on a map, did not speak Hebrew, and did not observe Jewish law, have in common with an Arab Jew who was already native to that region, observed the Torah, etc? Surely none.


    You also said...


    Now, many people who discuss the scientific "studies" conducted in Germany while the Nazi party was in power, focus on their propensity to conduct experiments on human subjects without determining safety, and performing medical procedures without a full understanding of the results that would come from them. I do not believe that this was the biggest criticism that can be levied against science in that period.

    While it is true that some things that they did, legitimately followed scientific protocols, the majority that they did, did not. Many were based on pseudoscientific principles, with methodology that was far from rigorous (a generous way of putting it). Intentionally cutting a wound in a prisoner's leg, and infecting them with a specific bacteria, while unethical, was generally done in a relatively scientific manner. The results of this experimentation had legitimate implications, and could be trusted.

    However, the vast majority of the "experiments" did not follow the scientific method in any fashion. A notable example was their "research" into racial hygiene. There had never been any legitimate studies that found anything of the sort. However, because the scientists began with a conclusion in mind, they strayed quite far from the method that allowed for reliable, reproduceable, and thus trustworthy, results. Evolution and Archaeology were, frequently, abused scientifically, by scientists under the Nazis. The damage to both evolutionary theory and genetics, caused by the pseudoscientific principles of the period, is still being undone.



    Permit me to clarify.

    I am certainly no expert on science, during the period of the NA, obviously, like most, I have heard bits and pieces.

    I do know that some v questionable experiments were carried out on various groups, esp gays and the mentally ill.

    And sets of twins, lest the chanced on them.

    Indeed, I would agree much was a pseduo science, albeit there was definitely men of real ability among them, but that is what happens when any group of defenceless people are demonised to the point of no longer seeing them as anything, but objects to carry out research on.

    Probably why I find it rather disturbing when I log on here, and read one 'member' writing 'Remember Muslims, adhere to that non drinking, good to have spare parts'.

    It was not a joke, and I find it disturbing, since I am sure that Nazi science would have thought nothing of removing and using the organs, of those they had demonised.

    Not to mention the small matter of this v allegation already having been made, against the IDF (IOF).

    I think it is also worth remembering, that lots of these German scientists were given refuge in the US, and in S America.

    It's all out there, for anyone to check.

    They were not doing that so that these Nazi scientists could flip Wendy burgers, I suppose ;)

    Curiously, not so long after, the US state, the CIA, and their affiliates, they began engaging in terrible experiments against their own people.

    Do you recall?

    Connected/influenced by what I have just said, do you think?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA

    Also..

    There have been numerous experiments performed on human test subjects in the United States that have been considered unethical, and were often performed illegally, without the knowledge, consent, or informed consent of the test subjects.

    The experiments include: the deliberate infection of people with deadly or debilitating diseases, exposure of people to biological and chemical weapons, human radiation experiments, injection of people with toxic and radioactive chemicals, surgical experiments, interrogation/torture experiments, tests involving mind-altering substances, and a wide variety of others. Many of these tests were performed on children, the sick, and mentally disabled individuals, often under the guise of "medical treatment". In many of the studies, a large portion of the subjects were poor, racial minorities or prisoners.

    Funding for many of the experiments was provided by United States government, especially the Central Intelligence Agency, United States military and federal or military corporations. The human research programs were usually highly secretive, and in many cases information about them was not released until many years after the studies had been performed.

    In a 1946 to 1948 study in Guatemala, U.S. researchers used prostitutes to infect prison inmates, insane asylum patients, and Guatemalan soldiers with syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases, in order to test the effectiveness of penicillin in treating sexually transmitted diseases. They later tried infecting people with "direct inoculations made from syphilis bacteria poured into the men's penises and on forearms and faces that were slightly abraded . . . or in a few cases through spinal punctures". Approximately 700 people were infected as part of the study (including orphan children). The study was sponsored by the Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health and the Pan American Health Sanitary Bureau (now the World Health Organization's Pan American Health Organization) and the Guatemalan government. The team was led by John Charles Cutler, who later participated in the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. Cutler chose to do the study in Guatemala because he would not have been permitted to do it in the United States

    In 1950, in order to conduct a simulation of a biological warfare attack, the US Navy used airplanes to spray large quantities of the bacteria Serratia marcescens - considered harmless at this time - over the city of San Francisco, California, which caused numerous citizens to contract pneumonia-like illnesses, and killed at least one person. The family of the man who was killed sued for gross negligence, but a federal judge ruled in favor of the government in 1981. Serratia tests were continued until at least 1969

    Also in 1950, Dr. Joseph Stokes of the University of Pennsylvania deliberately infected 200 female prisoners with viral hepatitis
     
  21. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From the 1950s to 1972, mentally disabled children at the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, New York were intentionally infected with viral hepatitis, in research whose purpose was to help discover a vaccine. From 1963 to 1966, Saul Krugman of New York University promised the parents of mentally disabled children that their children would be enrolled into Willowbrook in exchange for signing a consent form for procedures that he claimed were "vaccinations." In reality, the procedures involved deliberately infecting children with viral hepatitis by feeding them an extract made from the feces of patients infected with the disease

    In 1952, Sloan-Kettering Institute researcher Chester M. Southam injected live cancer cells into prisoners at the Ohio State Prison. Half of the prisoners in this NIH-sponsored study were black - the other half weren't. Also at Sloan-Kettering, 300 healthy women were injected with live cancer cells without being told. The doctors stated that they knew at the time that it might cause cancer

    In 1955, the CIA conducted a biological warfare experiment where they released whooping cough bacteria from boats outside of Tampa Bay, Florida, causing a whooping cough epidemic in the city, and killing at least 12 people

    In 1956 and 1957, several U.S. Army biological warfare experiments were conducted on the cities of Savannah, Georgia and Avon Park, Florida. In the experiments, Army bio-warfare researchers released millions of infected mosquitoes on the two towns, in order to see if the insects could potentially spread yellow fever and dengue fever. Hundreds of residents contracted a wide array of illnesses, including fevers, respiratory problems, stillbirths, encephalitis, and typhoid. Army researchers pretended to be public health workers, so that they could photograph and perform medical tests on the victims. Several people died as a result of the experiments


    In 1962, twenty-two elderly patients at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in Brooklyn, New York were injected with live cancer cells by Chester M. Southam, who in 1952 had done the same to prisoners at the Ohio State Prison, in order to "discover the secret of how healthy bodies fight the invasion of malignant cells". The administration of the hospital attempted to cover the study up, but the New York State medical licensing board ultimately placed Southam on probation for one year. Two years later, the American Cancer Society elected him as their Vice President

    There are too many to list.



    1) Do you think it is coincidence tothe influence and lack of humanity or ethics, we see above, to the fact that it seemed to go RAMPANT, not long after Nazi scientists got a ticket in the US?

    2) Given that shocking catalogue on abuse, on many of the same victims the NS chose, what difference is there between Nazi science(sic), and that science?

    3) Given the disturbing nature of the above, and the cover up's, and the fact they handily kept it all secret, until a time that all those involved were dead, is it really too much of a stretch to suggest they are doing this now? If anything, the US state has grown more out of control and unaccountable, has it not?


    Jack
     
  22. Jebediah

    Jebediah Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,488
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This thread is filled with misinformation, generalization, and flat out lies.

    Using broad terms like "mental illness" in this context is pointless. Mental illness encompasses a broad number of disorders with numerous etiologies. This thread is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to use scientific jargon to smear a group of people.
     
  23. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was rather enjoying my discussion, with FC, to be honest.

    *Shrugs*

    I guess you could always create your own thread, if you do not care for this one?
     
  24. Jebediah

    Jebediah Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,488
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope. I will continue to post in this one and debunk bigoted lies.

    The posts in this thread are foolish. The sweeping statements about genetics are not backed up by scientific fact.
     
  25. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think FC did a fine job of explaining better.

    Why don't you do that, rather than be so pugnacious?
     

Share This Page